Extension cords have become very popular over the years for connecting to existing electric cords on various power equipment such as but not limited to power tools and/or appliances to remotely located electrical outlets. A common problem is that when the electric tool or appliance is moved, the extension cord has been known to disconnect from the existing electric cord. This disconnection can cause extra undesirable downtime and frustration to the user having to stop their work to reconnect the cords to one another. Additionally, the interconnecting plugs and sockets on the extension cord and/or existing power cord often become damaged since the plug prongs and/or the female sockets can become bent and no longer reliable for future use. Still furthermore, extension cords are also used for many important applications such as in medical procedures, and such, where untimely disconnections can have disastrous results. Thus, untimely power cord disconnections can be both inconvenient and even dangerous.
Solutions over the years have included it being common for users of electrical cords to tie adjoining electrical cords together in a knot at a point near the interconnection of the cord plugs. However, there are problems with tying knots in electrical cords. For example, as the cords are being pulled apart under tension, the knots can become tighter placing undue stress on the electrical wiring contained in the cords. Further, it can be difficult and time consuming to both tie and to untie, the cords from one another, as well as the knots create an unsightly appearance. Still furthermore, small and/or tight knots can cause the plugs to break off from the wire.
Various types of patents have been proposed to solve the disconnection problems. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 2,778,582 to Arthur describes a “means for holding electric cable in a coiled condition”, title, that requires supporting the cable in vertically stacked loops similar to a garden hose, and does not describe, teach, nor suggest locking two or more cords together. U.S. Pat. No. 2,204,939 to Lyons describes a “combination electrical cord reel and outlet plug”, title, that locks a plug to a cord by wrapping the cord end about a reel, and does not describe, teach, nor suggest locking two cords together.
Other devices have used plural type slots on opposite sides of an elongated member. See for example, U.S. Pat. No. 3,781,761 to Harwood; U.S. Pat. No. 5,423,693 to Light; Des. 416,191 to Edwards; and D 468,996 to Sarkinen et al. However, each of these devices requires the user pass the cord down and up and/or up and down along a single column of side extending slots. Although there is some tension in this fastening arrangement, it is possible that some cords, such as small diameter cords can be pulled out of these single column of slots if pulled hard enough apart. Also, cords having diameters smaller than the slot openings can fall out of these devices. Similarly, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,514,004 and 5,695,356 to Swanson and U.S. Pat. No. 4,504,106 to Fechter each describe an elongated structure having S shaped ends that allow cords to pass in and out along a single line to lock the cords together, which also can be pulled apart with enough force or can disconnect if the cords are much smaller in diameter than the openings in the structure. Also, cords having diameters smaller than the slot openings can fall out of these devices.
U.S. Pat. Des. 401,559 to Angell shows a “retainer for coupled electrical cords” that shows cord ends wrapped around C-shaped ends of a device. However, this device can also easily fail since the C-shaped ends have thin tip portions that can easily break off over time from enough pulling tension resulting in the cords separating from one another. Also, the cords are tied together in a straight line by a device having openings to the same side, which is also not desirable for similar reasons to the other straight line attachments devices previously described. Also, cords having diameters smaller than the slot openings can fall out of these devices.
Various patents have included snapable dual prong type components for holding cords together. See for example, U.S. Pat. No. 2,461,427 to Kneebone; U.S. Pat. No. 4,183,603 to Donarummo; U.S. Pat. No. 4,221,449 to Shugart, Jr.; Des. 269,065 to Hough, Jr.; U.S. Pat. No. 4,832,618 to Gunderson; U.S. Pat. No. 5,336,106 to Osten; and U.S. Pat. No. 5,593,312 to McCracken.
However, these devices require bending and/or snapping various components such as prongs about the cords that can become broken and/or worn overtime thus causing the devices to not being reusable. Also, these devices still require the user have both cords arranged in a single straight line, that similar to the above devices can become disconnected when being pulled apart and/or if the cord diameter is much smaller than the prong holder diameter being used. Additionally, these fixed size devices do not work on all sizes of cords since cords and/or the plugs can come in a variety of sizes. Thus, some cords and/or plugs may be too large or too small to be supported by these devices.
Still furthermore other components have included using plural moveable locking components to hold the cords together. See for example, U.S. Pat. Des. 372,420 to Mendez and U.S. Pat. No. 6,319,044 to Stekelenburg. However these devices require additional assembly by having to combine plural components together which adds extra manufacturing costs and expense to the consumer. Additionally, having plural components raises the possibility that these devices cannot work when any of the components such as the rotating clip in Mendez or the clamping body in Stekelenburg becomes separated and/or lost and/or broken over time. Also, the shapes of these devices are not suitable to be placed and/or moved smoothly around corners and/or steps.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,582,524 to Sanner et al. describes a “cord lock”, title that passes a loop portion of each cord into a separate slot and hook. However, this device can easily fail when one of the hook members and/or eyelets breaks off which can occur when enough pulling tension occurs to the cords. Additionally, this device takes up additional space by requiring the interconnected plug and socket to be located to the side of the device. Additionally, the unprotected plug and socket can become separated if the unprotected loop between the interconnected cord and plug, and the device becomes caught on a fixed member such as a table or chair leg and pulling tension is applied to one of the cords. Also, the shape of this device is not suitable to be placed and/or moved smoothly around corners and/or steps.
None of these patents overcomes all the problems with the prior art described above. Thus, the need exists for solutions to the above problems with the prior art.